Putting The Squeeze On Bob Newhart, Duck Dynasty

I don’t need this grief at my age.The culture war continues, with most of the battles still being won by the side which employs its devastatingly effective Shock Shrill Squad (the SSS). Two examples.

Heard of Legatus? Group founded by Tom Monaghan, the guy from Detroit who once owned the Tigers and started Domino’s Pizza. Legatus is a Catholic group with strict entry requirements. You have to have made it big for one. Have a title like CEO or a bank account best expressed in exponents of ten.

Their annual meeting in February was to feature Bob Newhart, 84, an event they boasted of in their magazine. Newhart is Catholic. This isn’t gratuitous information, but important to the story.

Born and raised on Chicago’s west side, Newhart was brought up Catholic and attended parochial schools, including St. Ignatius College Prep (high school) where he graduated in 1947.

“I went to Loyola University in Chicago, which is a Jesuit school,” he said. “Ever since my success in comedy, I’ve always credited the Jesuits for the somewhat twisted way I have of looking at life.”

Two of his sisters still call the Midwest home. In fact, one of Newhart’s three sisters is a member of the Sisters of Charity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. “She’s about two years older than I am,” he told Legatus magazine. “She’s a whiz at everything she does.”…

“During the week, I’ll go to church twice a week,” Newhart said. “My wife had liver cancer. She had a liver transplant four years ago. Sheâ€™s in the prime of health now. I kind of go and thank Him for that. That was a very emotional time.”

Word got out in the “LGBT community” that Newhart was going to perform. Tempers flared, because why? Because Legatus is a Catholic group vocally in support of the Church’s magisterium, one small element of which is marriage sanity.

I’ve never seen Duck Dynasty (airs on A&E) nor do I know any of its characters, but one of them, Phil Robertson, gave an interview to GQ . In it, he made comments which were called an “anti-gay rant”. The SSS was dispatched and let it be known that they were—wait for it—“outraged.” GLAAD reappeared and called Robertson’s words “vile” and “littered with outdated stereotypes” and said they were not “what true Christians believe”.

The words in question:

It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.

Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong. Sin becomes fine.

Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.

Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.

We never, ever judge someone on whoâ€™s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists.

GLAAD took as “vile” not the bodily areas of focus which Mr Robertson correctly identified. It was the calling of homosexual behavior (acts) as sinful that was intolerable to them. Yet Robertson emphasized that it was not just homosexual behavior that is sinful, but so is bestiality and adultery, drunkenness, greed, idolatry, swindling, and terrorism. And this is true: these are the Church’s teachings. As is it taught that sinners, of which all of us are, should be loved and taught that sinful behavior must be avoided. A murderer is not excused by his saying, “God made me want to kill people, so that is what I do.”

The A&E network quickly announced that Robertson was “suspended.” It is unclear what they meant by this, because the upcoming season (begins Jan. 15) has already completed filming. And they admitted Robertson “will be appearing in some episodes of the upcoming fifth season”.

Apparently, Duck Dynasty is a “cash cow” and A&E’s self-labeling themselves as “supporters and champions of the LGBT community” does not run to losing revenue.

These two stories give a hint how to combat the SSS which can be expressed in one word: Earplugs.

We are disappointed that Phil has been placed on hiatus for expressing his faith, which is his constitutionally protected right. We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm.

Related

Here’s the email I sent to A&E (feedbackaetv@aenetworks.com):
Hey guys,
Since youâ€™ve put Phil Robertson on hiatus, Iâ€™m putting your network on hiatus. Possibly when you see where purchasing power lies you may be less PC.
RJK

David, that isn’t the point. If you read Phil Robertson’s full statement you would see that the basket is sin, including womanizing, and all the rest. What is the issue is the freedom to say what one believes in as a moral imperative.

I really have to question how sincere an 84 year old man who made a good living is if he cannot stand up for his religious beliefs. Yes, I know Peter denied Christ, but that was labeled as being a sin and Peter was ashamed. So is Bob ashamed of his refusal, or is it making sure he doesn’t lose his popularity is far more important?

Yeah, Duck Dynasty is a problem. Millions of viewers and one of the few shows on A&E that actually seemed to touch a widespread audience. Besides, A&E took back Dog the Bounty Hunter (now on CW–or was, if any of you care) after he used the “N” word. Money speaks much louder than any protest group, unless that group is large enough (or unmotivated enough, in the case of “normal” people who say they oppose things yet do nothing).

David–How do you know you don’t have close friends who practice bestiality? They are still in the closet.

It’s interesting that you (Briggs) have a strong spam filter but quoted precisely from Duck Dynasty. Guess the definition of “family” site has changed, hasn’t it?

How… not sure the term but now I wonder if Briggs has psychic powers as lately about the only thing my father watches on TV any more are DVDs of Duck Dynasty and the old 80s show, Newhart (yeah I had to get bootleg dvds for that).

Psalms 19 ” Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in thy sight, Oh Lord my strength and my redeemer”.
There is much strength in reading truths. Such as think before mouthing off; and that the Lord is the only judge.

Scotian: I had no idea what a “swatting prank” was–I learn something new everyday (sometimes multiple times a day!). Having been enlightened as to the existence of “swatting pranks”, I can see where Bob may have wanted to just quietly back out. The lunatic fringe becomes more lunatic all the time, doesn’t it?

“Why is it that liberals say they want other opinions, and then are surprised that there are other opinions?”

…or of similar responses one observes from those with a number of personality disorders (PDs) (e.g. bi-polar or borderline). People with PDs are particularly prone to ignore any & all evidence counter to a held view or position, and will often vigorously to suppress evidence to the contrary — that’s exactly what’s observed with the liberal community on any of a variety of topics, gays included as many of that sub-group work very hard to suppress, discount or ignore substantial evidence about ‘nature vs. nurture’ for the orientation.

Twin studies show, time & again, identical twins usually do not both become gay, though, the prevalence of identical twin gays both being gay is about double that for fraternal twins (e.g. see http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/comingoutadvice/a/Causes.htm). The absence of 100 concordance pretty much rules out biology/genetics as the cause, leaving “nurture.” The higher prevalence among identical than fraternal twins both being gay suggests a biological/genetic factor associated with response to environmental stress (e.g. much like the “fight or flight” [more accurately it is ‘freeze, fight, or flight’] response to sudden stress is strongly correlated to genetics). The Legatus article quoted by an affronted group, link in the essay above, is pretty much accurate in addressing the same theme, but without particulars. So much of the liberal & gay community strives to suppress this, or misrepresent the implications…

Which naturally leads to plug for a very good book: “The Liberal Mind; The Psychological Causes of Political Madness” available at http://www.libertymind.com. The site has a number of excerpts. It does not address gay issues specifically at all, but does dissect the larger liberal mindset.

Wow, so is he saying there was no point for the Civil Rights Movement to even happen? Does he not remember separate schools, bathrooms, horrible mistreatment and more? Itâ€™s unfortunate he isnâ€™t more sensitive with his words.

Can’t put it better than someone in the comments:

How does saying that on the farm he worked at, where there was no mistreatment of anyone, get twisted to â€œhe didnâ€™t believe in civil rightsâ€?

There is an old saying that offense cannot be given, it can only be taken. There are lots of people out there just looking for something to be offended about. Remember when the CEO of Chick-fil-a said he supported the biblical definition of marriage and the glaad crowd just had hysterical temper tantrums? The mayor of Washington DC was on TV jumping up and down screaming, I hate you, I hate you, stay away from me.

You remember the Red Scare? Back when all those backward, eminently mockable rubes were all worried about Soviet Expansion? Yeah, neither do I, except as an historical footnote bandied about as a club to beat down the unmitigated evils of Insufficient Progressivity.

Well this is the Brown Scare, and it has every chance of succeeding. Imagine Salem in about 1690 only with central air, twitter, and complaints far more benign than the hexing of one’s crops.

What the guy said about the mechanics of sex was revolting and vulgar. He went on to list legal behavior and illegal behavior as being sin, thus equating legal and illegal behavior. He did all of this cloaking himself in religion as a get out of being labeled a vulgar bigot card.

Do you Christians really think the actual Christ would say: “I’m Jesus and I approve this message”

Maybe Ken can explain it away saying Duck Dude has a form of Tourette syndrome.

As far as Bob Newhart goes, perhaps he has very many close gay friends who find Lagatus offensive. Just because some people who are anti-gay is right and proper does not mean that everyone agrees. Again, hiding bigotry behind religion is unseemly. What’s more disturbing is he agreed to be a part of a Christian group that only seeks to have members who are rich and powerful, therefore would exclude Christ himself.

I presume the behavior you think is illegal is bestiality. It’s illegal in the USA, but not in several European countries. Famously it was quite legal in Germany, until the animal rights “activists” lobbied to have it banned. They were worried about the health of the animals, not the sanity of the people. I believe it has just become illegal there (you can check; the law was proposed, I think, in the spring).

What the guy said about the mechanics of sex was precisely accurate. Too bad it sounds vulgar when you say it. I suppose that’s why people just have sex and don’t actually talk about it–it sounds vulgar. As for whether or not Jesus would have approved the message, it’s hard to say. I believe He was very straightforward about sins and there’s little evidence that he was PC in any way.

I agree with Briggs to some degree that sin has only a weak relationship with the law. Yes, some civil laws originated perhaps with the Biblical laws but most laws are based on the desires of society, not religion. It’s very common for people to equate legal with moral, which is why the gays are so vicious about legalizing “marriage” for them and why they equate calling the behavior “sin” with discrimination. Sin and the law are not the same thing in many cases. Just because it’s legal does not make it right and just because it’s right does not make it legal.

The “animals”, like the brain dead, comatose or mentally incompetent, don’t have the capacity to consent, so it is a form of rape.

Sure, sin is a religious concept that places threats of other worldly punishment of human failings and the law places threats of earthly punishment on human failings. Also, the explicitly law recognizes the degree or rank of human failing from stealing a candy bar to murder. I am sure you will agree that the sin of pride (of which no one can possibly avoid) is much less severe than the sin of murder or rape. Therefore, engaging in the consensual act of love with another human being is not at the same level of sin as raping a defenseless, innocent animal. In fact, I submit that it is a sin to equate gay sex with beastiality.

What Sheri said about gays being so vicious about marriage equality was precisely accurate. Too bad they have to do it, but they are fighting for fundamental equal rights and the history of man teaches us that the tree of liberty is fertilized with blood. I am sure you will agree that the US has conducted several vicious wars in defense of our right to be free. Legal is not right and right is not legal is true. However, imposition of a defacto Christian Sharia law is neither right nor legal. When in Rome, don’t cast stones.

Was Mr Duck’s offense suggesting his preference or the implication that he knows what God wants?

Why would anyone be offended at either– the former being a preference not much different than any other and the latter a delusion. Exactly what compels a person to allow someone else’s preference or delusion to have a meaningful impact on them or the life they lead is a mystery to me.

William and Sheri: I don’t know… one is an evolutionary imperative and the other is sick depravity. If you don’t know the difference, go ask your priest or clergy for spiritual advise on this topic. Better yet, ask the Pope, this one seems to be a reasonable and compassionate guy.

Conrad: I was not offended because I don’t get offended. I imagine people with more empathy for the gay and gays themselves were offended. To each his own. I find it interesting from a scientific point of view that Friedrich Nietzsche was right: the least Christ-like are those who call themselves Christians.

Well, if nothing else, the whole kerfuffle proves that ‘The times they are a’changin’. ‘

Sixty years ago Mr. Robertson’s commentary would have come under the heading ‘belaboring the obvious’; now, it is vile hate speech that will (and apparently, according to current mores, SHOULD) get you fired and shunned by ‘polite society’.

Howard: Contrary to the popular media and the deluded L&G groups, the Pope did not say homosexuality was not a sin. He just said we should not marginalize sinners. Not the same thing.
There is no evidence that bestiality is a “sick depravity” and homosexuality is an evolutionary imperative (how that qualifies as such is totally illogical, but it’s your term). People use the distinction to justify one and “make vile and evil comments” about the other. Sexual orientation is either genetic, learned or a combination of both. Genetics say heterosexual is “normal” because it’s how we procreate. All other versions of sex–homosexuality, bestiality, necrophilia, pedophile–do not serve any evolutionary purpose. They are variants on the normal. We chose to label all but one as wrong, which is in reality because homosexual psychiatrists were forbidden to practice both psychiatry and homosexuality (it being mental illness and all) so they voted to remove the behaviour from the list of things that are deviant. Precisely the same as if enough are into bestiality, they can vote to remove that. You’re drawing a totally arbitrary line to keep in what you like and push out what you don’t. It’s “Morality by Howard”, nothing more.

Conrad: That has come up in many discussions on the Duck Dynasty mess. Why must gays and lesbians burn at the stake everyone who disagrees with them.

As for the “bigoted” idea in all of this, a CK Chesterton quote came up: bigotry is â€œan incapacity to conceive seriously the alternative to a proposition.â€ It seems the gay and lesbian side is suffering from bigotry big time. They are the ones crucifying any who dare question their righteousness.

Being Christian is not defined as “loving everyone and letting them do whatever they want without comment”. You, Howard, are defining a religion that will not allow judgment. Without judgment, there is no purpose to religion. If religion just makes you feel good (like religions that have Barney the Dinosaur as their leader), it more a social club than a religion. I would like a list of religions that tell you everything you do is okay with their god/gods. While you’re on to that list, find me list of gays and lesbians who don’t preach, too. No doubt, they ARE preaching and preaching loudly in virtually every case.

I think those who debate the coherence or morality or What-Would-Jesus-Do-ness of Phil Robertson’s remarks are really missing the larger picture.

Of course Phil Robertson has freedom of speech. And of course A&E can protect its “brand” by whatever the hell (legal) means it wants.

The bigger picture is how we talk about, or rather refuse to talk about, disputable subjects. This is just another case of “The Science is Settled”. But, of course, it is only settled, in largely same way as with AGW, in the sense that it can be used as cudgel to promote a certain outcome-based agenda. In Phil Robertson’s case, it’s beat down those icky white people. The mass psychology behind this, which prompted A&E to act in the first place is in every salient way equivalent to that of a witch-hunt.

We don’t not hunt witches because we are more tolerant. We don’t not hunt witches because we believe they don’t exist. But we do believe the Wrong Kind of White People exist. And low-church Christian, successful, white, bible-thumping southerners are proof of the fact.

That the etiology of male homosexuality is poorly understood is an understatement (genes, in-utero, ex-utero, virus, recruitment, choice, any/all the above). We could have a rational, non-hysterical debate about that. We could have a rational, non-hysterical debate about the limits to or diminishing returns of social tolerance. How much “diversity” is too much? Can there EVER be too much?? We could have a rational, non-hysterical debate about the etiology of homophobia because hey gay guys mean more girls for me! So why does just about everyone, everywhere want to avoid gays? OK, there’s a zillion things we could have a rational, non-hysterical debate about… and NONE of those will ever happen because… the “Science is Settled” and we will use that to promote (and only promote) the dominant ideology. And if you don’t believe that, then you are just an evil person and you probably hexed my crops. I want to get a little dopamine rush, the thrill of that tiny morsel of power, that I always get from running with my tribe and condemning yours.

You may not be interested in Tribalism. But it is very interested in you.

Orthodox Christian teaching on sexuality is not difficult to figure out. It really isn’t. If you are interested in what the Catholic Church has to say about the subject, there are a number of good church documents to check out, starting with the Catechism and then I’d recommend checking out this one:

But because I’m an ecumenical kind of guy, I always like to recommend the work of Robert Gagnon, who is a first rate Biblical scholar and has answered just about every goofy liberal argument there is when it comes to this issue:

Wow. To think you can get fired for saying you think something is wrong. What a country. Our forefathers will be ashamed at what this country is turning into to.

Why is it wrong to say ABD is bad and sinful? If ABD= stealing, no problem. If ABD = murder, no problem. If ABD= “eating pork”, some may question your beliefs. Heck, if ABD = “liking the Lakers”, people may think you are crazy, but certainly not grounds for getting fired. But now substitute ABD with “gay sex” and all of a sudden you’re deemed a bigot, a hate monger and you should be fired.

Seems like the only thing Orwell was wrong about was he was off by about 30 years….

I challenge all those who don’t understand the Christian teaching on sexuality to give the teachigs of (soon to be Saint) Pope John Paul II (the Great) a try, in particular his Theology of the Body (TOB). In short, we are called to Love as Jesus loves, and how did he Love? He gave His life for the sake of the beloved– Love demands sacrifice, and yes, sometimes pain, and yes, sometimes death. In TOB, the opposite of Love is, not hate, but rather “to use” someone else as an object of personal gain (or pleasure). Basically, a same-sex relationship foster’s the environment in which two people use each other for personal pleasure. Bad. very bad.

Don’t forget there were two examples given here. The first was the intimidation of a man who said or did nothing to offend anybody, but was merely going to speak at a conference held by a group which the outage-crowd disliked.

You should watch a few episodes of Duck Dynasty. Won’t kill you, and you might like it.

It’s about an unusual family that prays together. Prayer is in every episode, as are homilies and moral lessons. Their religion is an essential part of who the Robinson’s are. Their religious message is the show’s message is the reason they make the show. They have plenty of material possessions. They don’t need the money they make from the (America’s most popular) TV show. They do it (make a reality TV show) to spread the Word.

Master marketeers working for Christ. And now Phil has scored another touchdown. The kerfuffle is just bait for the hook. Don’t resist. Give DD a look-see. Nothing to lose.

Ken – The less than 100% correlation between homosexuality in identical twins does not preclude homosexuality being congenital. “Congenital” does not mean the same as “genetic”. I seem to remember that one of the possible triggers for homosexuality in men is abnormally high exposure to female hormones in the womb.

It need hardly be said, although I’m going to say it anyway, that one can hardly do anything about a tendency caused before one was born!

Having said that, I still think that the over-promotion of the homosexual lifestyle currently in force does have an effect. A proportion of the population (I don’t know how big a proportion) is susceptible to influence in this matter, because their inborn tendencies are near the middle of the scale between exclusive homosexuality and exclusive heterosexuality. And there is such a scale; bisexual people of both physical genders do exist.

It’s probably also true that teenagers are more susceptible to influence than are adults.

One should consider that in discussing “tendencies” in behaviour, there is currently a theory that a gene, MAOA, combined with childhood abuse, results in violent adults. If we say that “tendencies” due to genetics and in-womb exposures are the reasons for homosexuality and that people are thus “made that way”, how do we then blame people with the MAOA gene and an abusive childhood for their bad behaviour? How do we jail them when “it’s not their fault”? Same goes for obesity and other “genetic” traits. Once we go with “born that way” as an excuse for behaviour, you open the door to acceptance of many, many things. Obese people already claim discrimination saying they are fat because of genetics. It’s door that once opened will be very difficult to shut.

Someone with a genetic or congenital predisposition towards violence negatively affects others if he or she acts on them. Someone with such a predisposition towards homosexuality or obesity does not – except, of course, if said person swings someone whose sexuality is still plastic towards homosexuality.

Which is why “recruiting” teenage boys to a homosexual lifestyle should be punished. Harshly. At least, that IMHO is the logical position if you think homosexuality is wrong in the first place.

Each and every time we go down this path, it ends with an insistence that some behaviours are bad and some are good based on the person’s preferences. If violence comes up, it immediately is claimed to harm society while virtually every other behaviour gets a pass. The assumption is society can only be harmed by violence, not by sex, family breakdown, etc. I don’t think there is actually any justification for that, short of “it serves my purpose”. In some cultures, violence is definite part of their every day life and many don’t see this as wrong. How do you show that “harm to others” exclude sexual practices, destruction of the family, etc while demanding it include violence? The imperative against violence is every bit as much a moral judgement as that against certain sex practices.

Interesting, Fletcher, that you mention “recruiting” since gays generally demand we say this is not a choice and the child would go in said direction no matter what.

Sheri – I know that. I contend that them saying that is a half-truth. To some extent, it’s a result of the human tendency to view what is actually a continuum as a binary decision. In the matter of sexuality, it is a known and observable fact that people’s preference varies from exclusive preference for the opposite sex to exclusive preference for the same sex – and every shade in between.

Recruiting to active homosexuality is only going to work for that proportion of teenagers at a susceptible age whose innate sexuality is somewhere in the middle. Given that less than 4% of the population describes themselves as homosexual at all, I don’t know what the actual figure is (even as a proportion of teenagers, never mind the total population) but it isn’t going to be more than about 1% and probably less – although I have no idea how one would go about measuring it.

Or to put it another way, a homosexual man trying it on with most teenage boys is going to get nothing more than a knuckle sandwich – if he’s lucky. The people who need protecting are the tiny proportion who haven’t decided yet.

Fletcher–Yes, violence harms others. But there are religions and societies that condone such violence in specific cases. They do not view violence as wrong, but may well view homosexuality as wrong. Women’s right are considered harmful in some societies. “Harm to society” depends on the society.

I agree that what people do in the bedroom is their business. Now, if they would just leave it there and stop parading it around and demanding it be called “good” and “right”, we would not be having this discusson.